I affirm and value morality, defined as conformity to the rules of right conduct. morality is clearly the highest value because the resolution centers around whether the united states "ought" to ban handguns, and ought refers to a duty or obligation. we only have an obligation to do something if is in line with our perception of right actions

the criterion is moral contractarianism, which is the concept that morality is derived from the idea of mutual consent among people. In the state of nature, without any rules to stop us, people have the right to do anything they please. This make interaction with other human beings difficult because your rights often interfere with the rights of others. for example, your right to own property may interfere with another persons right to own property when you steal something from them. thus, society can only come about when people decide to mutually constrain some of their rights in order to preserve the more important ones. for example, you give up your right to steal things and as a consequence, preserve your right to property because nobody will steal for you. It is important to note that the constraint must be mutual. everybody gives up the same rights and keeps the same rights. contractarianism is clearly the best criterion because it explains how morality is created- from humans.

As the affirmative, my burden is to prove that the right to own handguns ought to be given up, because by doing so we will preserve more important rights, especially life.

Contention 1: banning guns will prevent death

The Brady Campaign writes "Interviews with survivors of near-lethal suicide attempts revealed that a quarter made the attempt less than five minutes after making the decision. About half of those did so within 20 minutes, and three-quarters of suicide attempts occurred within an hour." "Since many suicides are impulsive, separating someone from the means to self-harm takes away their ability to act on what otherwise might have been a fleeting impulse. Suicidal crises are often triggered by an immediate stressor, such as the loss of a job or the breakup of a relationship. However, the urge to act is fairly shortlived, typically lasting a few minutes to a few hours. That"s why delaying access to a gun is critical; it allows time for the suicidal impulse to pass without being realized."

Basically, suicide attempts are often very impulsive, and easy access to a handgun helps facilitate this impulse. Banning handguns. but it will help eliminate some deaths because people will be forced to use other, more time consuming methods. Doing so will sometimes allow for that brief suicidal impulse to calm down, and gives them time to think. Thus, banning handguns is in the best interest of every individual, because doing so can help preserve life, so the people ought to mutually constrict this right in order to achieve morality.

subpoint B: accidental deaths. The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine writes "more than 680 Americans per year were killed unintentionally with firearms." Additionally, over 7000 are involved in non-fatal accidental shootings. Injuries often occurred during fairly routine gun handling"cleaning a gun, loading and unloading, target shooting, and so on. It is important to recognize that although some people are at higher risk for unintentional shootings than others, accidents can happen to anyone."

As we can see, the right to own a handgun can infringe on others because handguns can easily discharge, and so we ought to mutually constrain this right because by doing so we will preserve safety.

The proposition does not want guns to be completely banned, so the following is our plan:

1. Make ths use of guns much more regulated. Instead of no gun laws, we could regulate gun rights.

2. In order to make guns more safe, we can give people who want guns "tests". Before they can purchase a gun, the person must prove that they are trustworthy. That will me done by a series of steps which will include a psych evaluation, the reason to own a gun and a license.

3. If the person has passed these, he will be educated on how to prevent accidental homicides and make sure that he knows how to handle the gun properly.

[1]Black markets, also called shadow markets, come about when people want to exchange goods or services that are prohibited by governments. Black markets skew economic data, as transactions are unrecorded. Black markets also arise when people don't want to pay taxes on the transaction for legal or illegal goods or services. Some black markets exist simply because people don't realize there are laws they aren't following, such as bartering and not reporting the taxable value of the transaction, or hiring a regular housekeeper or babysitter, but failing to pay employment taxes.

The licensing restrictions that governments impose on numerous occupations cause some workers to enter the black market because they don't want or can't afford to invest the time and money to obtain required licenses. For example, in New York City, one must purchase a license called a medallion in order to legally operate a taxi business. These medallions cost more than $600,000, making them prohibitively expensive for most entrepreneurs. As a result, some people may choose to operate black-market taxis without a license - at least, until they are caught.

Making guns completely illegal will cause the black market to form. The bad men will still get their guns. The way to stop this however is by just implementing stricter policies for gun ownership. There will be much less need for a black market because the majority (the sane) will receive a gun legally. With this formation on guns, the black market would be smaller than one caused by a strict ban.

The black market will only form when majority- sane want something illegal. However, when the sane are able to get the guns, a black market will not form.

Contention #2- Gun bans have been attempted in other nations. They have not worked.

[2]The deadly shooting in San Bernardino happened in a state with some of the nation's toughest gun laws: California bars assault weapons, blocks the sale of large-capacity magazines and requires universal background checks for all gun purchases.

Authorities say they believe attackers Syed Rizwan Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik had legally obtained two handguns and that two rifles were also legally purchased in California. Federal officials say the attackers had large-capacity magazines that violate California law in their SUV.

Since the attack Wednesday at a social service center in Southern California, the state's strict laws and the apparent legal purchase of the weapons have set off a debate over the effectiveness of gun measures and whether getting tougher would help prevent more violence.

California had a full gun ban and that was a complete fail. Regulation- the answer key.To control guns properly would be to give them, but with restriction.

Lets look at some nations that did not ban guns. They placed logical restrictions and their crime rate did fall.

[3]

• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).

• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.

• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).

• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).

Contention #3- The Constitution and Its Contents

[4] The Second Amendment is the most important right, because the Second Amendment keeps the government from being able to impose tyranny. Also the Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves, without the government being able to take the right away. Last without the Second Amendment all the others are useless, it is a guarantee to the people that we have the right to bear arms, it keeps the government from taking a way our rights, because we can resist.

The Second Amendment gives us the power to oppose tyranny. It does so because no dictatorship would want to come to a country that can resist. Stated in the Cuba Constitution, “When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution." This is what our Second amendment gives us the right to do—protect our government. With the second amendment we can fight tyranny, but without it our government could be over thrown.

Completely repealing this amendment will open doors for corruption and tyranny. The amendment was in place to protect us. A logical regulation will not result in a dramatical loss- just a safer society. A ban however, has certain risks that we can not take in order to safeguard our democracy.

The purpose of the Constitution:

[5] The Constitution:

Creates a government that puts the power in the hands of the people

Separates the powers of government into three branches: the legislative branch, which makes the laws; the executive branch, which executes the laws; and the judicial branch, which interprets the laws

Sets up a system of checks and balances that ensures no one branch has too much power

Divides power between the states and the federal government

Describes the purposes and duties of the government

Defines the scope and limit of government power

Prescribes the system for electing representatives

Establishes the process for the document’s ratification and amendment

Outlines many rights and freedoms of the people

Dear judges, the propositions plan will be to edit the gun rights to make the society much more safer while protecting the citizens and letting people have guns- as long as they meet the logical requirements.

My opponent completely drops all of my arguments, so you can extend those out, as I will when I address the negative's case.

First, my opponent has no value structure set up. thus, it is clear that you must hold my value of morality and my criterion of contractarianism highest in this debate. with that in mind, lets look to the contention debate

looking to my opponents first contention, the second card that he reads says that licensing restrictions that governments impose cause people to enter the black market because people cannot afford the money or time to obtain a liscence. thus, he is contradicting himself because the plan he sets forth involves psych evaluations and liscencing. So his argument that gun restrictions will not cause black markets, but a gun ban will, is completely unwarrented. In fact, it is clear to see that banning handguns and restricting them will have the same effects in terms of the black market, so his plan is not solving for any of the harms that he describes with the affirmative. my opponent has placed the burden on himself to prove that the CP he presents is better in solving for whatever supposed harms handguns have, but in fact all he is proven is that black markets will always exist, so that does not gain him any ground.

the second major problem with the first contention is that since he drops me on framework, we have to evaluate it through a contractarian standard. my opponent does not provide any link as to why we ought to retain our right to own handguns

In response to my opponents first card on his second contention, the card specifically specifies assault weapons, so it is clear that this card is extratopical. furthurmore, the card continues to say that the handguns were in fact legally purchased, so when my opponent states in his analysis that california had a gun ban and it failed, this is clearly false becasue the card itself says that the purchase of the handguns was legal. also, he provides no evidence that the handguns were banned so this is clearly an unwarrented claim. next, my opponent has once again not proven that his plan will solve for the harms better than mine. The card specifically says that the tragic event started a rally for gun measures, but my opponent provides no causal link for why restrictions would solve better for this problem than a ban. so we can see that the affirmative solves for this just as much as the negatives plan.

looking to his second card with other countries, there are four main problems. first, this debate is united states specific, so citing other countries is not topical. the united states has specific cultural ideas related to guns, so my opponent cannot prove that restriction would work just as well in other countries. second, my oppont claims that these restrictions caused crime rates to fall, but the card does not state that anywhere. this claim is unwarrented so you cant listen to it because he provides no evidence. thirdly, my opponent once again does not prove why the restrictions work better than the ban. as the affirmative, i would argue that whatever benefits happened in these countries could have been further intensified with a complete ban, because there would be less access to guns. all my opponent proves is that reducing handguns caused decreased crime, which begs the question of would taking them away completely have even better consequences?

With my opponents third contention, there are four glaring problems. first, refering to the constitution and saying that just because it says we have the right to bear arms is an is ought logical fallacy. just because we currently have the right to bear arms in no way equates to the fact that we ought to bear arms, which is what we are debating. second, my oponents claim that the second ammendment is useful for resisting against the government is completely false. nowadays, the government has drones. a handgun is not useful for that. third, just because we have the right to bear arms, does not mean we have the right to bear handguns. under contractarianism, it is clear to see that we ought to constrain this right slightly because of the harms that i (and my opponent) outline. taking away handguns isnt even going to take away your right to bear arms anyways because handguns are not the only way to defend yourself. fourth, my opponent again contradicts himself because if his argument is that a ban on handguns would restrict our right to self defence, he is doing the exact same thing with his handgun restrictions. he doesnt prove a thing with this contention because his burden is to prove that restrictions have some added benefit to an all out ban, but it is clear that both would technically "violate" our self defence. with that in mind an affirmative ballot is still necessary because an all out ban will prevent accidental deaths

However, morality is subjective. You may consider this to be the correct and moral thing to do while others may consider a gun ban incorrect and unnecessary. The morality depends on the people since it is not at all objective. We create our moral grounds. That leads me to the fact that most people actually consider it immoral and incorrect to ban private ownership of guns.

In addition, there are rules of things you can do with a firearm. We should not be taking away these rights from the law abiding citizens of the USA.

The current laws protect us well and ensure morality and therefore we do not need a gun ban.

[1] Nearly three weeksafter the latest mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people, 52% of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws, 6 percentage points more than the 46% of Americans who support such laws. That's a wider gap than in June when CNN last surveyed Americans on gun control, finding that the public was equally split at 49% on the issue.

Contention #2- Prevent Death

Subpoint A- Suicide

In this point, my opponent mentions how a gun ban will help prevent suicide. However, there are 2 things that contradict that fact. Is it really good to prevent suicide? People do have the right to death and we can not take that right away from them. It is immoral to take away the control of people over their own lives.

The only way to ensure fairness is to give people control over their lives. In addition, a gun ban will NEVER prevent suicide. It is common knowledge about what happen to the Brits.

The Brits banned guns. Now, the Brits stab each other to death. I dont see this to be an improvement over the previous situation and that shows how ineffective gun bans are.

Subpoint B- Accidental Homicides

It happens, I agree. But there is a very simple solution.

We can NOT outright ban guns so instead, we can prevent accidental homicides.

That will be done by following the opposition plan. Instead of issuing a gun ban, we can just teach people and educate on the proper use of guns. We can make sure that gun owners know how to preent accidental homicides and make a gun home safe instead of dangerous.

My opponent refutes my first contention by saying that I contradict myself.

However, he is the one who failed to comprehend what I was saying. I am saying that a BAN will cause the black market. The shadow markets are only caused when the majority is not able to obtain something. However, the majority will be able to obtain a gun and there would be no point to create the black market.

The counter plan will take guns from criminal hands and only give them to those who will be able to use them properly.

My opponent refutes my second contention by saying that in California, regulations failed. However, in California, a BAN failed. The strict laws would have surely worked.

He refutes my fourth contention by saying that the constitution doesnt justify anything. However, this contention was about how it is in there for a reason and the reason was stated.

My opponent goes on to state how there are drones now and guns cant do anything.

However, drones are still not as popular and therefore, we can use the guns to defend ourselves.

my opponent refutes my value by saying that morality is subjective, but there are 2 problems with this. first, he doesnt even have a value in his constructive, so clearly we need to look to my value. second, he ignores my criterion of contractarianism. even if our perceptions are subjective, we reach an objective perception of morality through contractarianism because we willingly give up the rights that we know could be used against us.

my oponent also brings up a card saying that 52% of americans oppose stricter gun controls, but there are two problems with this. first, it is an is/ought logical fallacy. just because people think something, doesnt mean we ought to do something. Im sure a poll of nazis in germany would have said that 99% of them wanted to kill the jews, but that doesnt mean that we ought to kill them. there is a clear difference. second, the card simply says that people want stricter gun controls, but it doesnt even have an option for people to choose that they wanted a ban, so the card isnt even comparitive in relation to the aff.

moving on to contention 1, my opponent poses the question of is it really good to prevent suicide. but, looking to my crirterion of contractarianism, the answer is clearly yes. we realize that the right for others may infringe on our rights. the card that i read shows that suicides are almost always impulsive acts, so the right for a parent to own a handgun will infringe on the right of a child's life because during the impulse, he uses the handgun to killself. so clearly, we recognize a place where mutual constrains will attain the more important right of life.
in response to the brits. first, my opponent talks about how they now stab eachother. however, my first contention isnt talking about homicide, it is talking about suicide. second, he doesnt even read a card so you cant weigh that card in this round.

in response to his idea of educatng the proper use of guns, my opponent provides no solvency that this will actually happen. as you can see with the card that I put forth in my contention 1 subpoint B, accidents happen to anyone, and most accidental deaths happen during routine activities. being careful still isnt enough to stop these accidents from happening because guns are erratic and can discharge accidentally even with careful handling.

in response to the black market argument, my oponent doesn't even prove that a black market would arise. who is to say that normal law abiding citizens are going to break the law and go the black market. I would argue that they wont.

moving on to my oponents case he defends his second contention by saying that it was in fact a gun ban that failed, however, he provides no evidence that there was in fact a gun ban. in fact, the evidence he cites in the NC states that "Syed Rizwan Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik had legally obtained two handguns and that two rifles were also legally purchased in California" so we can see that the guns were still legally purchased, and therefore readily available to most of the population, a problem that would not exist in the affirmative world. In fact, the card he presents states that the only thing illegal were the high capacity magazines, so it is clear to see that restrictions are not enough to prevent handgun crimes.

in response to his "fourth" contention, he says that he has a reason for why we need the right to handguns in the second ammendment, but the only reason he said was "The Second Amendment gives us the power to oppose tyranny. It does so because no dictatorship would want to come to a country that can resist", but as i said, handguns are not sufficient to protect against a tyranical government. if the government became oppresive nowadays, and you and a couple of your buddies showed up on capitol hill with a couple of handguns and ski masks, the govenment would annihalate you because of the technology they have. the second ammendment is outdated. sure, maybe back in 1781 when the only firearm was a musket, you could use your guns to start a rebellion. but nowadays, with the technology our military has, its simply not feasible. also, my opponent drops my is/ought fallacy attack, so his fourth contention is going to fall. he does not sufficiently prove why we even ought to have the right to own handguns. all he says is we need arms to protect from tyranny, but as i have pointed out in the 1AR and 2AR, arms does not necessarily mean handguns, and handguns are clearly not useful for protecting yourself from the government.

Moving on the the key voting issues,

first, my opponent does not prove why restrictions are necessarily required over bans. he outlines the harm of homicides in contention 1, but he doesnt even provide any link as to why restrictions should be valued over bans. I solve for this problem even better than he does because looking to THE EVIDENCE THAT HE PRESENTS, people legaly obtained handguns in california and used them to kill other people. so you will be signing the ballot affirmative there

Second, my opponent does not sufficiently prove why handguns are a right that is essential to retain. his fourth contention is a complete is/ought logical fallacy, so he doesnt prove that we have the right to bear arms. and even if we did, that doesn't mean we have the right to bear handguns. so your clearly going to see that under contractarianism, we ought to give up this right that we technically possess in the state of nature because of the 3 guarenteed benefits: preventing accidental deaths (my contention 1b) preventing suicides (my contention 1A) and preventing homicides (his contention 1)

So in this round, I will provide final reponses to my opponents contentions and his refutations.

My opponent mentions how since I didnt provide a new framework, his stays. However, I have nullified his FW for this debate and therefore there is no FW.

He then attacks my card about how Nazis also wanted to kill the Jews. First of all, the frame of this debate is USA. Second of all, most of the people opposed the genocide of Jews. That is why many nations fought against Hitler and ensured the freedom of Jews. That is why the United Nations were create; to ensure that that never repeats again. Now, people of America need their unalienable and they are ready to fight for them. Our government shall not infringe the second amendment.

Next, my opponent refutes my refutation by saying that suicides are impulsive acts. They absolutely are but taking away guns ONLY will not stop the issue with suicides. Suicide is possible with other weapons, including cutting oneself and overdose. He then brings up the FW again but since it has been nullified, that argument is invalid.

About the child, even if we take guns away from the adult, he will still be able to commit suicide. We can not force life upon someone who does not want it. The child will yes suffer at the death of the adult but must the adult be forced to live because of the child? No. In addition, he will be able to still commit suicide after a gun ban.

My opponent states that I have not provided solvency with the plan to educate people on the proper use of guns. However, the cause of most accidental homicides is people not knowing how to properly handle and live with a gun. My plan will solve this issue since

A. Only the sane will have gun rights and B. Those who own guns will know how to use them and therefore prevent accidental homicides.

My opponent than states that there is no proof that a black market will happen. However, there is. The supply and demand cycle works very simply.

There will be demand and the black market will supply. A ban on guns will be forming a black market and taking away guns from the lw abiding citizens of the USA.

My opponent next refutes my point saying that there was no evidence which stated that the restriction didnt work. However, it is quite clear that there was a BAN in Cali. In addition, my plan has worked in numerous different countries. We are going to restrict guns in the USA but take example from other nations. In nations such as France, Germany, Finland and many more. The USA should take examples from these nations in which the crime rate drastically decreased.

My opponent also states how if I and some buds resist an oppressive government, the government will clearly annihilate us. However, my opponent clearly fails to see what a revolution is. A revolution is when the WHOLE NATION is against an oppressive government. Let me give an example. France. The French during the revolution had lack of resources and absolutely nothing. Yet, they defeated the oppressive government. In addition, the USA revolution. We had absolutely no resources, poorly trained soldiers. Yet, we defeated the British who have oppressed us. Finally, the Haiti slaves. The Haiti slaves who had NOTHING were able to resist slavery and the oppressive government.

Allocation of Points

Conduct- TiedS&G- TiedConvincing Arguments- CON

Points of Pro-

1. FW which was nullfied by con2. Homicides (suicide and accidents)

Both of these were refuted by con.

Points of Con-

1. Black market. My opponent tries to show why it will not form however, as given from my speeches, it clearly will.2. Other nations. My opponent attacks this by saying it is out of frame. However, I was pointing out how it worked their and therefore must work in USA, therefore that my point is standing. 3. Constitution. My opponent points out how we are unable to oppose the tyranny however, there was clear proof of how we were.4. My plan which my opponent did not even attempt to attack.

-Pro states incorrectly that their value of morality should be held highest, however since they gave no reason this is false. As a voter I can choose to hold Con's values of practicality and examples above something like morality.

-Pro states again, incorrectly that it's up to con to provide arguments as to why the right to own firearms should be retained. Again, by default the BOP is on Pro because he is arguing for a change in the status quo. Con, if they wanted, can choose to not give any arguments and only refute Pro's. However they decided to argue in favour of a counterplan, which works as well.

Now the arguments.

Pro's arguments"

(Refuted) C1: Suicides. This argument goes to CON. Con argued that suicides can be conducted with other methods, Pro argued that since it's an impulsive thing, if there aren't any means nearby, the urge will go away. However under Con's counter plan, a gun wouldn't be any easier to obtain than a knife or pills, because gun owners would be properly educated.

(Passed) C2: Accidental Deaths. This arguments goes to PRO. Pro makes a good point here when he notes how many people were killed unintentionally. His stat of 680 people actually isn't as small as you'd think. The difference here is that anyone can intentionally kill someone, using the means they have. However, it's much easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun, than it is with a knife. Con's education plan here is a bit tougher to apply, because it's a different thing to know where to place your gun securely, than completely eliminating the possibility of your finger slipping.

(Passed) C1: Black Market. This is actually a really easy pass for Con. Con noted the supply/demand equilibrium, and notes how when there's a shortage, black markets form. Pro's rebuttal was lacking, because they assumed that when Con said "restrictions," this would also create a shortage. However, as Con mentions, all law abiding citizens would still be able to purchase firearms legally under her plan.

(Passed) C2: Comparison with other countries. This point goes to Con as well, because they compared gun bans in other countries, and showed how they're ineffective. Pro's rebuttal was again, lacking. They stated that since the debate was about the US, this arguments shouldn't count. However a comparison with other countries is completely within the resolution. Pro's only attempt to state a difference is when they mention American culture with guns. However they state that Con's proposed restrictions wouldn't work as well here as they do in Europe. However this is a huge contradiction, because Pro's proposal of a ban goes against American culture even more than Con's proposal of restrictions.

(Refuted) C3: Constitution. Pretty simply category to break down. Con's case stated that the 2nd amendment guarantees the people's right to defend themselves and the constitution from overreaching governments. However Pro easily refutes this when they state that the military has a much better arsenal than citizens, and would crush any militia. Con's comparison of this with the French and American revolutions is lacking. Because back then the French and American governments didn't have aircraft or drone strikes.

In the end 2 of CON's arguments passed.

The breakdown of the arguments shows that the win goes to Con, 2 arguments to 1. Good debate, however I was really surprised to see that no side brought up crime rates, which is pretty common in debates like these.

Our second amendment is the right to gun ownership. We have the right to own guns to protect ourselves from terrorists, other countries, and our own government.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence for any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

If the government were to take them away terrorism would spike and the government would be able to control all of its people. One country already tried to take away and when they did, the crime rate went way up.

"Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, and enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." - James Madison

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer', and always will be. Let us hope our weapons are never needed - but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. - Edward Abbey

"But now, he hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his script: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

Just a few of the quotes about gun rights... But as well, if you take away gun rights, it will only hurt the people because it's not like people breaking the law by killing will not break a law that takes away guns.

And since when have criminals followed laws? Some robbers just gonna go rob a store, but decide not to because of the oh so scary sign saying weapons aren't allowed?
Terrorists will come and attack seeing a weak country that's citizens can't protect themselves.

Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS - This is a vote out of the Voter's Union, please message me or another moderator if you would like to submit your debate to be voted on. If either side has any issue with this vote feel free to let me know.